Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a stake in public schools and send mine to private. You POS *******s tax the crap out of me to fund your decaying 19th century socialist propaganda machines without any recompense.
Ask Obum**** where he sent his kids to school in Chicago.
That Slater can her take her judgements and cram them back down her pie hole from whence they came.
Do you believe that we should get rid of public schools?
BS. I was a public school teacher for 37 years. Of my two children, one attended public school for 12 years. The other attended private school pre-K through 5 and public school 6-12. I was never a bad person....
I will take her seriously when her own kids start attending a public school somewhere like North Philly or Camden.
It is easy to preach down to everyone. Let's see her put her money where her mouth is.
I will be honest with you in saying that I agree with her premise - everyone needs to go to public school because if that happened, our educational system would be strengthened. Problem is, that is not reasonable or feasible in today's world.
I have considered living in three of the worst cities in my state - Camden, Trenton and Newark - but decided against it because the towns simply were not safe places in which to raise children. I considered moving to these cities because I was tired of hearing black/Latino people telling me that one of the reasons inner cities were so bad was because minority professionals refuse to live in them. As a single man in my 20s I would have probably lived in some of these areas, but as a father and husband, there is no way I would do that. Just not a safe environment in the neighborhoods nor in the schools.
I sent my oldest son to one of the most exclusive private schools because I was not satisfied with his public school (inner-ring suburban). My two younger ones are going to public schools, but since we are now located in one of the top districts in the state (yes, we now live in an affluent 'burb), the question is moot in our case.
By the way, I attended private schools myself - after starting out in Chicago public schools.
That would only make public schools worse than they already are, and bad schools ultimately hurt everyone, not just the kids who go to them.
If the parents of a failiing school tolerate it, then it is their own fault. My parents yanked me out of public school in Richmond, VA the 1970's when they started "bussing".
I will be honest with you in saying that I agree with her premise - everyone needs to go to public school because if that happened, our educational system would be strengthened. Problem is, that is not reasonable or feasible in today's world.
I have considered living in three of the worst cities in my state - Camden, Trenton and Newark - but decided against it because the towns simply were not safe places in which to raise children. I considered moving to these cities because I was tired of hearing black/Latino people telling me that one of the reasons inner cities were so bad was because minority professionals refuse to live in them. As a single man in my 20s I would have probably lived in some of these areas, but as a father and husband, there is no way I would do that. Just not a safe environment in the neighborhoods nor in the schools.
I sent my oldest son to one of the most exclusive private schools because I was not satisfied with his public school (inner-ring suburban). My two younger ones are going to public schools, but since we are now located in one of the top districts in the state (yes, we now live in an affluent 'burb), the question is moot in our case.
By the way, I attended private schools myself - after starting out in Chicago public schools.
Even that premise is not even true. What tends to happen when you mix low performing students with high performing students is that the high performing students are held back. If the institutions are geared towards mediocracy forcing everyone to attend them won't make the institutions better.
That would only make public schools worse than they already are, and bad schools ultimately hurt everyone, not just the kids who go to them.
Don't care. I'm at the point where I am tired of giving a ****. I've played by the rules my whole life and worked hard while many others have gotten fat and lazy living off the Great Society Programs that have destroyed this once great country.
As long as we have no power to hold parents or kids responsible there will be bad schools.
Some cities use a mix of privates to provide alternatives, others use public school tiering (like Chicago) to separate the wheat from the chafe so to speak.....or any combination thereof.
I agree that the article is just incendiary garbage meant to drive clicks (great observation to the previous poster).
Even that premise is not even true. What tends to happen when you mix low performing students with high performing students is that the high performing students are held back. If the institutions are geared towards mediocracy forcing everyone to attend them won't make the institutions better.
That depends upon the size of the school and how they track kids etc.
Larger schools over a range of classes from more basic up to honors\AP etc.
Is sure not holding back my kids given they aren't even in the same classroom with low performing students the vast majority of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.